Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Nicholas Winterton: We resume our important debates. We were on clause 25. The Minister was actually in the process of sitting down when I had to adjourn the Committee. I was about to call James Brokenshire and I call him now.

Clause 25

Conditions for and contents of a domestic violence protection order

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: When we broke for luncheon, we were in the midst of debating a finer point of law in relation to the McCann case and the standard of proof that would be needed in connection with the first condition set out in clause 25(2), which states:
The first condition is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that P has been violent towards, or has threatened violence towards, an associated person.
We were debating that measure and what it actually meant.
I think that the Minister of State indicated that he recognised the McCann judgment, which applied a sliding scale in terms of the balance of probabilities, such that in certain circumstances, that balance of probabilities might be close to the criminal standard and burden of proof that would be applied. Having said that, from the manner in which he responded, it is possible that his intention is to be closer to the purest interpretation of the civil standardon the balance of probabilitieswhich would be the normal test, rather than seeking to apply the standard that was set out in the McCann judgment. That judgment obviously said that, where serious issues were at hand and where certain facts had to be proved, that standard should be interpreted on a much more significant basis.
I hear what the Minister says and that, in essence, this is a matter for the courtit certainly is. However, I assume that those engaged in the pilot will be told that the normalif I can describe it like thatcivil standard of proof, that is the balance of probabilities standard, applied rather than the beyond all reasonable doubt standard.
As I said, this will be a question of testing. I think that I have properly understood the Ministers intentions and therefore what guidance will be provided to those involved in the pilot. Obviously, we will have to wait and see what challenges subsequently come through.
I also note what the Minister of State said about children, and I welcome that comment. When we consider domestic violence, issues relating to children are very relevant, as we have said in our debates on earlier clauses. Clearly, we will need to look very closely at the implementation of clause 25 through the pilot, to see whether it will operate in the way that the Minister of State suggested.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Have you received notification of any additional new clauses or new provisions in the Bill? It is becoming a fairly regular habit during the consideration of the Bill. I understand, from an e-mail that I received at lunchtime, that a letter has been sent relating to new provisions about control orders. I suppose that that is absolutely fine, in the context of the time that has now been allowed for the Bill. However, it seems as if this is turning into the festive season, with so many things being hung off a Christmas tree Bill. I was wondering whether you had received any further notification or seasons greetings from Ministers or otherwise, in relation to any other new provisions that might be added to the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: However important that matter might be, it is not a point of order. I am prepared to use my discretion, in so far as if the Minister of State wishes to make any comment at this stage to facilitate the debates in this Committee, I am very happy that he should do so. However, if he does not wish to do so, we will move on to our business. [Interruption.] That is my ruling and if the Opposition Whip is unhappy

Simon Burns: I just thought that the Minister might want to say something.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is remaining in his seat.

Clause 26

Breach of a domestic violence protection order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: We now move on to clause 26, which relates to the breach of a domestic violence protection order. Obviously, we have debated previously the sanctions that might apply in relation to a domestic violence protection notice, and the distinction relating to that was drawn in the preceding debates this morning. It is obvious that if the order is breached, there is a clear contempt of court for the reasons outlined by the Minister, with the relevant sanctions that might apply.
Again, in that context, we see the repetition of the language used in the Bill in clause 26:
a person arrested by virtue of section 25(9) for a breach of a DVPO must be held in custody and brought before a magistrates court within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of arrest.
Remand will therefore be approached. We need to ensure that breaches of the orders are properly enforced because, as the Minister will appreciate, in the context of other sorts of orders introduced by the Government, enforcement of breaches has not been a notable factor. At times, breaches appear either to result in no sanction at all or they are not followed through properly. Sadly, there have been some notable examples of that with other orders, such as anti-social behaviour orders.
Therefore, in the context of clause 26, it would be helpful to understand what guidance the Minister intends to give. Obviously, I appreciate that he said he would issue guidance alongside the measure to ensure that breaches are dealt with appropriately. I respect and understand the desire that is reflected in the Bill to protect the victim of domestic violence. The suspected perpetrator should be held in custody and I understand and respect the Ministers emphasis on ensuring that the relevant person is protected.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the 24-hour period stated here is sufficient. It would appear that, again, we may have a remand hearing and a substantive hearing thereafter. The court may wish to apply other conditions where a domestic violence protection order has been breached. Obviously, the clause states that if someone breaches an order they have to be arrested and come before the court. If the matter is not disposed of, that person may be remanded. Does the court have discretion to impose other conditions or to modify in some sense the domestic violence protection order following a breach?
Obviously, the immediate sanction and protection is arrest, but technically the matter is a contempt of court, which is punishable by a fine or by being sent to prison. In the context of these sorts of orders, is there any discretion or is it appropriate that, for example, conditions are made more restrictive or reviewed? Should things be considered in that way? Alternatively, is it the case that once the DVPO for the 14 to 28-day period has been granted, with all the relevant restrictions contained in it, it is simply maintained and followed up according to its terms, and that the person concerned is punished in the way I have outlined for contempt of court?
We come back to the issue of the victim and the support mechanisms that are in place. From the debate this morning, I am clear that, at that stage, a caseworker would be engagedwhether an independent domestic violence adviser or notso some support mechanism would be in place. Clearly, if there has been a breach, one would like to think that additional protection might be offered because, as we know with domestic violence, there can be further breaches and further violence. What will be the role of the multi-agency risk assessment conference in such circumstances? The MARAC is intended to bring together a number of agencies and organisations to identify victims of domestic violence. In effect, it combines the police, probation and social services, the voluntary sector and various other agencies in local government. Those are the groups that are most likely to be represented. They will bring together information to help identify high risk and to allow a co-ordinated response.
As the Minister said that the MARAC was intended to cover serious cases rather than something used as a matter of course in cases of domestic violence. Therefore, one assumes that if a domestic violence protection order was breached, the MARAC might provide a co-ordinated response. Other factors may well be relevant to ensure that the needs of the victim have been properly considered and attended to, putting to one side the policing issue. There may be other welfare or safety concerns that require something broader than a law enforcement response. For example, the health service may be involvedit may be particularly relevant.
The Government have pushed forward with MARACs and IDVAs. How does the Minister intend the structure to operate in respect of breaches? Will a MARAC be triggered on the issuance of a DVPN, on the ordering of a DVPO, or on a breach? Would that be determined on a case-by-case basis, or does the Minister intend that there should be some kind of protocol in place, through guidance, to state that where a MARAC exists and a DVPO has been breached, the intention is that the MARAC becomes involved? It would be helpful to understand the protocols that he envisages.
As the Minister knows, in some cases, MARACs meet only every few weeks because it is difficult to get all the partner agencies together. If MARACs are intended to be the mechanism, does he expect to issue some kind of protocol for a more urgent response to deal with an emergency situation where there is clearly a risk? For example, someone with a DVPO is arrested and has a court hearing, and the court decides to release rather than remand in custody. If there is a serious risk of violence or a serious threat to the associated person, some kind of mechanism will need to be in place to protect them.
It would be helpful to understand how clause 26 is intended to operate. What support services would respond, not simply to deal with the law enforcement aspect of the order and the breach thereof, but to ensure that the victim is properly catered for and that serious risks are properly addressed?

David Hanson: Let us cut to the chase. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that a deterrent is in place to stop people breaking the DVPOs that we discussed earlier today. They will need to know that if they are the subject of a DVPO and they breach it, they will be remanded for 24 hours and subject to the courts meeting which, if it were Christmas eve, could be two or three days later. They will be remanded in custody until such time as the court is in session.
When the court is in session, the penalty that could be given for a breach of a DVPO is clearI have set it out on the Floor of the House and today in Committee. Under section 63 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, the court may impose a fine of up to £5,000 or a custodial sentence for a period not exceeding two months. If somebody who receives such an order knows that if they breach it they will face serious consequences such as the loss of liberty or serious financial limitations, that is a strong deterrent. That is important and it is the nub of the clause.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch asked whether the court could modify the conditions of a DVPO following its breach. The court cannot modify the order following such a breach; that is not necessary, given that we have a maximum 28-day DVPO. If the court wishes to deal with such issues, it can in theory impose further orders at a later date, and continue to intervene in that way. The hon. Gentleman also raised an important point about support for the victim. The purpose of the Bill is to protect victims and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and removed from the premises to ensure the protection of the victim. If a person breaches that order, they will face serious consequences.
If DVPOs are successfulas I believe they will be, following the pilotwe want to ensure that caseworkers provide necessary support for victims of domestic violence to help them take steps to protect themselves, understand the risks and come to terms with the challenges that they face. For that reason, in February 2008, we rolled out multi-agency risk assessment conferencesMARACsacross the country to protect those victims who face the highest risk. Furthermore, £7.8 million of Government money was put behind that roll-out to provide independent domestic violence advisers to support victims in dealing with the consequences of the fracturing of their domestic relationships.
We have more than 700 domestic violence advisers in place across England and Wales, and MARACs are in place in 200 local areas. We have helped and supported 29,000 victims of domestic violence since February 2008, and as far as I am concerned, that is crucial to ensuring that the whole system works. It is about giving respite to the victim at a time of great stress in their lives, by removing the perpetrator and imposing severe penalties if the perpetrator returns to the home, while at the same time providing help and support. I hope that that helps to clarify the objectives for the hon. Gentleman, and that he will support the clause in its entirety.

James Brokenshire: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the support mechanisms. My question is about the protocols that might need to exist for the engagement of MARACs if there has been a breach of the orderit might be that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that now and that it will be subject to the pilot in the two areas to which he has referred. It seems that a heightened state of risk has been identified at that point so what protocols might need to sit alongside the statutory requirements in clause 26 to ensure that those support mechanisms are in place? The MARACs might need to be convened to assess that risk properly. I was seeking to probe the right hon. Gentleman on that, as it seems that such protocols would need to be in place to get the system to operate effectively and ensure a seamless approach.

David Hanson: I do not have that level of detail about how the system will work at a local level. That will be determined by the 200 local MARACs in local areas. However, self-evidently, the type of victims who will benefit from a notice and from a domestic violence protection order will probably be known to a range of services and have previously been victims of domestic violence. A breach of an order is a serious issue that will be registered with local agencies to show that there is a potential threat of domestic violence. We have had an individual who has not only been removed from the property and given a DVPO but has returned to the property or violated the family home. Self-evidently, that is the sharpest end of an already sharp level of concern. Although I cannot go into any detail, a breach will certainly be brought to the attention of the MARAC, and that will be known by the police. A DVPN has to be agreed by a senior police officer, who, as part of their duty, liaises with other agencies about the necessary impact of that order. Although it is a valuable point, and I am not decrying it, safeguards need to be in place to ensure that concerns are picked up at a local level.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: Clause 28 deals with guidance, and we have discussed the utilisation of guidance at length in relation to other provisions. I note what the Minister said about the need for guidance to supplement the relevant provisions, but it would be useful to know when it is likely to be made available. I assume that he will say that the Bill needs to complete its passage through the House, and that guidance will be issued only when the terms of the Bill have been finalised, but, as always, this is a point of clarification because the Committee is signing off provisions on guidance without necessarily knowing what that guidance may be. It would be helpful to understand how the provision will work. Obviously, the Minister does not contemplate parliamentary scrutiny being attached to the guidance, so I assume that his intention is simply to publish it in advance of the implementation of the pilot in the two areas that he has mentioned. Again, it would be helpful to understand his intentions and the timing of the measures.
Subsection (3) says that before issuing guidance under the clause, the Secretary of State must consult certain relevant bodies, two of which are named and the third is effectively left to their discretion. The guidance must cover enforcement, but because of the issues that we have discussedsupport for victims and other agenciesit would be useful to understand the categories of person that the Secretary of State thinks fit to consult in subsection (3)(c). In particular, if we are talking about police constables being involved, should there be any obligation to consult not just the Association of Chief Police Officers but the Police Superintendent Association and the Police Federation? Moreover, it would be useful to which parties the Secretary of State might want to consult to obtain some sort of balance. For example, would the Minister envisage consulting organisations such as Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse, which provides training to IDVAs and, therefore, may be able to provide an overarching perspective?
The guidance must be sympathetic not simply to the needs of policing but to practical support networks and the views of victims. Moreover, it is important to obtain the views of prospective case workers. The IDVAs are directly relevant, because they may well fulfil, in certain serious cases, a case workers functionhence the importance of CAADA, given the training that it provides to IDVAs. I apologise for all those acronyms, but it is the way of modern life.
Does the Minister envisage giving advice in relation to home visits? Has he ensured that the police follow up cases and conduct regular home visits to victims after the issuance of a DVPN? Visits can give victims a much greater sense of safety and can demonstrate to perpetrators, who may still be living in the household, that the matter has not been forgotten or ignored because a notice has been issued. Obviously, the domestic violence protection order then follows through. Visits can also ensure that where a perpetrator has been ordered to leave the relevant property, that order is adhered to. If the alleged victim, in respect of whom a DVPN and DVPO have been issued, is living in the property and is still in fear, they may not wish to report a breach of the order. Therefore there should be a regular follow-up with the police where a notice has been issued.
I shall probe briefly to find out whether the intention behind the guidance is to provide such advice to ensure that orders are properly adhered to. The New York Police Department, for example, has domestic violence protection officers in various precincts across New York City, who make home visits to ensure that, on a practical level, orders are properly adhered to. Such a practical issue should be mentioned in the advice and guidance that the Minister of State may give on clause 28, to ensure that we are getting the best out of the notices and the order structure. It would be helpful to understand whether the Government intend to include in such a model the relevant follow-up, to ensure adherence to the terms of the notice and the order.
To what extent will matters contained in the equality impact assessment be taken into account in the guidance? The Home Office published its equality impact assessment on domestic violence protection orders, which highlighted various factors, including the following:
The police should take into account any extended family network and consider whether making an order against a member of this network will impact negatively on the victims wellbeing.
It may not be appropriate to issue an order against the main carer for a disabled or elderly victim...There is a wider consideration as to when it would be appropriate to evict a perpetrator from a property which directly relates to their employment.
The needs of certain minority groups and those with disabilities were also flagged up in the assessment, and I would expect such issues to be reflected in the guidance. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the intention is that such matters should be dealt with in the guidance to ensure that issues relating to victims, and other relevant factors, are properly considered to make sure that the application of the notice and order regime is working efficiently and effectively.

David Hanson: I am happy to conduct as wide a consultation and discussion on the guidance as is practicable. I envisage that, once the guidance is drafted by Home Office officials post-Royal Assent, which is normal practice, we would put it in the Library of the House of Commons and, possibly, on the website. We would certainly consult the two main agenciesACPO and the National Policing Improvement Agencythat would be responsible for drawing up the guidance. I am happy for it to be circulated widely without any trouble whatsoever.

Alison Seabeck: Is the Ministry of Defence one of the bodies covered by the list of those whom the Secretary of State deems it fit to consult?

David Hanson: I would be more than happy for the MOD to be considered in that regard, given that clause 29 contains provisions specific to the MOD in relation to the operation of the orders. I have no problems with that because, if Parliament approves the clauses, it will have said that it wants to have a protection order in place to remove the person from the home; that it wants a DVPO to ensure that there are 28 days for alternative arrangements to be made; and that it wants penalties in place for severe breaches to deter people and to encourage them to participate in the orders.
How that works in practicehow we put case workers in place and what issues we have in relation to the practical application of these orderswill be matters for the guidance, but they will also be of interest to a range of bodies. There is no lack of will in having a wide view on these issues and I would be very relaxed about that as a whole. Ultimately, we have to settle on a form of guidance and we have to issue it under the auspices of ACPO and the NPIA, but I have no problems in looking at that guidance.
In response to the hon. Member for Hornchurch, superintendents, the Police Federations and domestic violence bodies will be informed, if they want to be informed. We can consider whether we do that on the website, by consultation or by placing the guidance in the Library of the House. I am quite relaxed about that issue. The guidance itself will cover a range of details, such as the breadth and scope of both the DVPN and the DVPO, including the provisions that we have discussed on the protection of children and other dependants, what the exclusion for the perpetrator will mean, what the role of the caseworker will be, what the police and courts are required to consider, how we ensure that the court takes into account various matters when issuing a DVPO and what areas are involved in relation to sign-off procedures and other practical considerations as they are deemed necessary. There is a range of things to consider and, quite honestly, I am very relaxed about them.
I simply say that ultimately guidance will be published after Royal Assent and prior to the commencement of the pilot programme. In the light of that programme, if there are issues that need to be examined, as the Minister responsible when the pilot is conducted in October this year, I will be very happy to take those issues forward too.

James Brokenshire: I note that the Minister did not comment on the equality impact assessment that I referred to. I presume therefore, from the scope and the ambit of what he is saying, that it is intended to address those points to which I drew attention.

David Hanson: My apologies. Obviously, we wish to agree our legal obligations and all matters are usually tested against that standard.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Ministry of Defence Police

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alison Seabeck: It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas.
The clause is very welcome to my constituents, because, as many Members will know, I have a constituency with a very large naval base; in fact, it is the largest naval base in western Europe. We have a considerable amount of service accommodation, both inside the base and, significantly, outside. That is why subsection (2) will be very reassuring to the families in my constituency who have been victims of domestic violence. Some of them have become victims after servicemen and servicewomen who have served in theatre have returned from war. The experience has affected those men and women for a range of reasons, and led to domestic violence.
There is no evidence that this type of domestic violence is significantly decreasing; it is an ongoing problem. Victims are supported by the Royal British Legion and by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, which do a very good job in trying to help them. The inclusion of subsection (2) is important, as is the assurance that the victims will not be evicted from their properties at any stage, because there has been a history of the Ministry of Defence asking families to leave their properties when a relationship has broken down. The Minister of State offered some welcome reassurance on that issue during the witness sessions.
Plymouth would be the perfect place for a pilot, perhaps alongside Wiltshire, not only because we have very high levels of domestic violence in the wider population but because of the MOD interest. We also a sexual assault referral centre, run in an innovative way by Twelves Company. So that is my bid for Plymouth to be a pilot area.

James Brokenshire: As the hon. Lady knows, I have had the pleasure of visiting Twelves Company, which runs the SARC in Plymouth. What strikes me is the need for a co-ordinated approach between the local authority, the health service and police to make this work effectively. That is certainly an important and innovative model in responding to sexual violence. The hon. Lady is right to suggest that there are lessons to be learned for any subsequent pilot that emerges from these proposals.

Alison Seabeck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know of his interest in the work that Plymouth has been doing. We have a good single service that is working well, but we need to bring in the MOD element, and the inclusion of the clause in the Bill enables us to do that. I welcome the Ministers comment that Plymouth may be considered for one of the pilots.

Mark Oaten: It is a pleasure, Sir Nicholas, to serve under your chairmanship. There are a couple of issues relating to the clause on which I seek clarity. First, if the Ministry of Defence police get involved in issuing a notice, will they also have to notify the local police? The second question relates to what happens if an individual leaves the armed forces midway through this process. Will the responsibility leave the Ministry of Defence police? What are the transfer arrangements to move over to the ordinary police?

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome that succinct contribution.

James Brokenshire: I rise briefly to welcome the concept of bringing the MOD police within the ambit of the Bill to deal with domestic violence. We discussed this subject and the information received at the time during the evidence sessions. As has been alluded to, it is important to have good co-operation and co-ordination between the MOD police and the local police in the operation of these provisions, and to acknowledge the MOD as an important partner in ensuring that these provisions are brought into effect appropriately.
Will the Minister say whether any disciplinary aspects might sit alongside these provisions, relating to a serving officer subject to a DVPN or DVPO? I am sure there will be implications for the rules and requirements governing service personnel. It would be helpful in understanding the relative jurisdictions of relevant courts in such cases to know that there will be a combined approach to ensure that this is undertaken effectively.

David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport for raising the matter in relation to the clause. I know that she has a very large military contingent in the great city of Plymouth. [Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) is not a member of the Committee.

Mark Fisher: I apologise, Sir Nicholas. I am in the wrong room.

David Hanson: I am sure many others wish they could leave the Committee just as quickly as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. Some of us are here for a lot longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport has a very strong military contingent in her constituency. My first job was in Plymouth, and I remember vividly looking out of my bedroom window and watching ships return from the Falklands war. I spent a pleasant 12 months there and know how much the military is embedded.

Simon Burns: Doing what?

David Hanson: Working for the Co-op, a wonderful organisation.
The key thing is that the presence of such a large military contingent means that there are pressures, particularly when men and women return from active service. There can be tensions that lead to incidents of domestic violence. It is importantand clause 29 does thisthat the Ministry of Defence police have a power similar to that of the civil police to issue domestic violence protection notices. The scope of clause 21 to allow DVPNs to be issued is exactly the same as that of clause 29. If a perpetrator was a member of the armed forces living in accommodation provided by the armed forces, a DVPN would be issued. That would allow the eviction of the perpetrator from the premises, not the victim. That is particularly important in a military context, because the tenancy of military properties will undoubtedly be with those serving in the military and not their families. That is an important defence mechanism.

Alison Seabeck: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is important that support networks should be in place for families living in confined service accommodation? If so, the victim could be offered really good support. Otherwise, he or she could feel isolated because of the comrades and friends of the perpetrator. Some special and quite different circumstances surround victims in MOD accommodation.

David Hanson: That is so, and the pastoral role of the military is extremely important. There will still be relationships with normal local services in places such as Plymouth, but clause 29 gives the Ministry of Defence the power to act on MOD property.
If a member of the MOD police issues a DVPN, the application for a DVPO will made to a magistrates court and will proceed as normal. To a certain extent, that answers the question of the hon. Member for Winchester. The military has the power to exclude someone from the premises, but normal procedures will appertain in relation thereafter, as outlined in the Bill. They include the powers of arrest in accordance with clause 22, and in accordance with the provisions of clause 23 on breach in custody.
In answer to the first point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, I wrote yes in my notes, but I have forgotten the question. If he looks at the record in Hansard, he will see what it was. I hope that I have clarified the second point, which was about dealings with the magistrates court. If an individual has left the military, we are talking about a 48-hour initial notice and a 28-day maximum secondary DVPN. I imagine that those leaving the military within 48 hours or 28 days will be few and far between, but they will be subject to military jurisdiction for the first part of the order and to the magistrates court once the breach order has been completed.
I have been reminded of the question to which I wrote the answer yes. It was about whether the military police would hand over to the regular police. The answer is yes, it would be as normal. I hope that that helps. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising those issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Pilot schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Brokenshire: We have reached the last clause in the part of the Bill dealing with domestic violence. The final piece of the jigsaw is the pilot schemes. As the Minister said, they are important; should the Bill be enacted, the intention is to pilot the provisions in two areas. I understand that under the current timetable they have been pencilled in for October 2010but subject, of course, to parliamentary procedures, including Royal Assent.
I have a few questions for the Minister on the nature of the pilot. I heard what he said about the intended time scale and the fact that they are supposed to last six months. The regulatory impact assessment talks about six to 12 months. Will the Minister confirm whether the time period may be limited by the use of the funding? The regulatory impact assessment states that £700,000 has been allocated to the pilots, of which £250,000 would be set-up costs and £400,000 running costs. The assessment makes it clear that the Home Office will provide that funding, but if it appears that the cost of the DVPOs will exceed the budget, the provision in the legislation to stop the pilots will be enacted. In essence, the time period could therefore be shorter than six months, if the funding were used more rapidly than forecast, but the forecast is slightly uncertain, because we do not know how many notices might be issued, how many orders would be granted and what the costs of policing and legal aid might be. Is the Minister confident that the allocated sum would at the very least provide a reasonable period of time in which to assess the pilots?
The Minister will obviously have undertaken some analysis to come up with the £400,000 running costs, and to have some confidence that there will be a meaningful period of time for the pilots, and a meaningful number of orders to be assessed as a consequence. That is important, because the Ministers approach puts great emphasis on the pilots being able to test how effective the proposals would be, and whether they should be rolled out to a wider arena. It would be helpful to know that analysis, so that we can be comforted that the Minister is confident that we will get a reasonable period of time.
One of the risk factors is the availability of caseworker support locally. The success of the DVPO in its pilot form will depend on the existence of caseworkers who, as we have heard, will work with victims to explore their options. However, the Home Offices regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that many specialist support services are already stretched locally. To ensure that we have meaningful pilots that operate effectively, that sort of issue needs to be properly addressed in the recruitment and set-up process.
On the funding, will the Minister confirm that the £700,000 will come from a separate pot and not from money that has already been identified, for example, the pot going to regional government offices for IDVAs and MARACs for 2009-10 and 2010-11? That funding pot is intended to provide IDVAs and MARACs across the country, and it would be interesting if the funding for the pilots was intended to come out of that.
There is also the issue of when the decisions will be made about where the pilots would operate. I hear clearly what the Minister has said about probably having a small force and a large force, to test the effectiveness of two areas and look at the use of the DVPNs and DVPOs. Would he also consider whether an urban force and a rural force should be reflected in the pilots? The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport has highlighted her area, and has made a bid for it to be chosen as one of the pilot schemes. More seriously, a force such as that in Devon and Cornwall is rural, and in Cornwall it may be more difficult to obtain services and support than in a more urban area. If the pilot is be instructive and provide lessons about how it could be applied across the country, consideration should be given to that matter.

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Plymouth falls within the area covered by Devon and Cornwall police.

James Brokenshire: That is right. Devon and Cornwall police cover a wide area, hence my point about dealing with a rural force as well. I appreciate that there will be an assessment, and it is intended that the pilot will stop at the end of the funding or at the end of the six-month period. The regulatory impact assessment says that the pilot scheme will run for a period of time and stop while an evaluation is carried out.
If the pilot is successful and funding, whether locally or through other means, could be identified, and if it is felt that the domestic violence protection arrangement is working effectively, does the Home Office intend to end it, as the regulatory impact assessment states? I appreciate that lessons need to be learned for a wider roll-out, and that the more general costs, sustainability and all sorts of factors need to be considered in the assessment. However, if £250,000-worth of investment is sunk into the project at the outset, would it simply stop? Support networks may have been established and some useful work will have been done on the ground in the two areas. So is there any flexibility, notwithstanding what might be stated in the RIA?
Finally, how does the Minister expect any subsequent roll-out to operate? He may say that it is too early and that we need to have the pilot first. So there is going to be just a six-month project, which then stops for 12 months or however long an assessment might take. Is that how he intends roll-out to operate or would he hope that an assessment might be undertaken more quickly? If the use of these notices and orders is shown to be positive in practice, and the funding is within the anticipated ambit, how might the national roll-out follow on?

Mark Oaten: I have three points. The first relates to the Ministers assessment of the cost of setting up the pilots. Would it not have made more sense to have identified which authorities will be part of the pilot and to ask them to be involved in the assessment of the costs? Can he give an assurance that once those areas have been identified they will not lose out financially from being part of the pilot scheme?
Secondly, what happens if an individual in the pilot area has an order made against them but then moves to an area that is not part of the pilot and is under another force that has no experience or understanding of what happens in those circumstances?
My third question is a slightly different point from that made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and is about what happens when the pilot stops. I am concerned about what happens to the individuals who may be benefiting from the pilotwho may be getting the follow-up visits and who may be dependent on the processwhen all of a sudden the support stops. What systems are in place to ensure that their safety continues when the pilot ends?

David Hanson: I shall try to answer the questions that have been put. I have been very clear throughout the consideration of these provisions that there will be a pilot. It will comprise two areas. It will, to help the hon. Member for Hornchurch, probably have one rural and one more urban area. I have already pointed out that the chief constable of Wiltshire, Brian Moore, has expressed an interest in his force being involved. I note the bid from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport for her force to be involved. We will make an evaluation and post Royal Assent, we will agree a two-area pilot to reflect training and experimental needs. We will run the pilot for a minimum of six months up to a maximum of 12 months to look at the areas of work that are required.
The set-up cost that we have agreed, as the memorandum states, is £700,000, which is generous in relation to our assessment. Home Office officials and our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice worked out the cost between them. It comes from a separate funding pot.

James Brokenshire: I hear what the Minister says about the six to 12-month period. Is the regulatory impact assessment incorrect when it states that the legislation will stop the pilot if the funding costs are likely to be exceeded? That is what the assessment says, although I appreciate that the Minister is now saying that there will be a minimum period.

David Hanson: The costings we have established through the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are in the region of £700,000. That will fund, at a minimum, a six-month pilot up to a potential maximum 12-month pilot. Other partners may join us to share the cost, because third-party agencies want to look at the support mechanisms. If I may be so bold as to tell the Committee a secret, we hope to share some further costs with third-party agencies to ensure that we undertake savings to the Home Office in due course. The key element is that there is adequate provision; we have costed it fairly and we will make sure that it comes from a separate pot to ensure the roll-out.
I would not have spent three hours of the Committees time, as well as many hours of official preparation time and ministerial time engaged in the policy, if we did not wish to see the scheme rolled out. I do not want a postcode lottery based on two pilot areas where it is not available. There is a proposal so that we can learn lessons from the practical implications and look at the longer-term funding requirements, given the comprehensive spending review that will be in place after the general election, to roll out the scheme. My colleagues and I will have to make a decision about that downstream. We have to face the will of the electorate before that, but we will certainly look at the lessons and the schemes potential roll-out.
The hon. Member for Winchester raised some interesting points. On the question of what happens if an individual moves away once the clauses we have considered are put into practice, let me say two things. The first element is the DVPN, which stops someone entering their property for 48 hours. Where they go when they are not in the property for the first 48 hours is a matter for them. The clauses set out that if they return and breach, there will be a severe penalty. If a magistrates court imposes a DVPO, it will again be a matter for the individual where they go. However, if they return to the property, the magistrates court would be responsible for enforcing the penalties.

Mark Oaten: What I had in mind was this: if the victim moves to a different area, who will have responsibility for managing what happens if the perpetrator tries to go to the victims new home and that house falls outside a pilot area?

David Hanson: The whole purpose and thrust of the clauses is not that we move the victim around the country, but that we ensure that they stay in the family home and that it is the perpetrator who goes walkabout, not the victim, although I accept that there may be occasions when that happens. If the perpetrator comes back to the home, they face severe penalties. I do not expect that to be the normal situation, but I will reflect on it and if there are issues, I will take them from there. I think I have answered all the points.

Mark Oaten: I asked about those who are in a pilot area and benefiting from the support. What happens on day one after the pilot is concluded? Is there a scheme to at least follow through and keep the support in place rather than taking on new cases?

David Hanson: That is a very important point. If I centre the whole debate on the victim, the purpose of the provision is to make sure that the perpetrator is out of the way for a period while the victim receives support. In that event, I imagine that, as part of the pilot, arrangements will be made through the local officers dealing with the matter to ensure that the support follows the victim. The crucial element is what we do to help the victim to get over the domestic violence, and to remove the perpetrator from the premises, to remove the initial threat. I cannot give a specific guarantee, but those running the pilot scheme, and ultimately the effective scheme, will want to take strong cognisance of those points. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Grant of injunction: minimum age

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 165, in clause 31, page 65, line 22, leave out 14 and insert 16.
We now move to a new section of the Bill, and the provisions relating to gang injunctions, which follow from provisions that were debated on the Policing and Crime Bill in 2009. It was stated that those provisions would apply only to adults, even though there was no specific age restriction in the measure. The context can be summarised by the comments of the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who said:
Injunctions, however, have to be enforceable and it is unlikely that they would be enforceable for somebody under 18: the court cannot fine someone who does not have a source of income and most gang members would not have a legitimate source. Nor can the court sentence someone under 18 to detention in a young offenders institutionthe penalty for breaching one of these ordersfor a civil contempt of court.[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2009; c. 566.]

David Hanson: We have changed our mind.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has changed his mind, so the Opposition spokesman may continue his oratory.

James Brokenshire: I am interested that the Minister has changed his mind. Is that in the context of the wording that I read out?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling expressed a number of difficulties about how to operate the provision for under-18s. We have changed our mind, and those difficulties are being overcome by the Bill.

James Brokenshire: Apologies. I understand. I read out the quote to set out the points that the hon. Member for Gedling and I debatedprobably in this self-same roomas well as to discuss some of the practical issues and consider why the provisions are being brought forward in this Bill to address the specific concerns of the hon. Member for Gedling. My reason for referring to that was not to suggest that the provisions in the Bill, particularly clause 31, are defective.
The question for consideration and debate is whether 14 or over is the appropriate age to which the orders should apply, or whether there should be a different age. I want to probe the Minister on whether 14 is the right age, or whether 16 is more appropriate.
The sad reality of gang violence, certainly from my experience of talking to the police and other agencies throughout the country, is that some quite young children are involved in gangs. I do not mean loose terminology to describe a group of friends who hang around as a gang, but an organised gang intent on criminal activity, violence, selling drugs and protecting an area in which they may live. Young children may be exploited by older members of that organised gang to facilitate criminal activity with all the violence, antisocial behaviour and associated problems.
For Committee members who have not read the Centre for Social Justices report, Dying to Belong, I recommend it as a good summary of the nature of the problems, the extent of the issues and the fact that, sadly, young children are engaged in that kind of activity across the country. On the age issue, the CSJ report states:
The 2004 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey...found gang members throughout the surveys age range of 10-19. MPS research found gang members were typically aged between 12 and 25 and this appears similar in Manchester. Witnesses speaking to the Working Group in Liverpool and Glasgow also confirmed this as the general age range. Worryingly, the Working Group was told by senior police officers and practitioners that gang members are getting younger and this appears evidenced in the declining age of gun crime offenders.
In that context, I understand why the Government have sought to plug the gap in the original gang prevention order provisions in the Policing and Crime Act 2009, as sadly there are gang members who might be just on the fringes of the age of criminal responsibility.
When officers from Tridentthe Metropolitan police specialist service dealing with violence in Londons black communitygave evidence on gangs to the Home Affairs Committee, they provided 15 profiles, and those identified as being particularly at risk were youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 who are unemployed and cannot claim benefits. Expulsion from school was a key factor. Progression for that group can be swift, so that was the relevant profile. Interestingly, there was a suggestion that 16 to 18 was the key age range for Trident, although it was accepted that arrests had taken place by the age of 15, so there is a pattern of persistent and prolific offending.
It is becoming increasingly clear that too many young lives are being lost as a result of absurd disputes over postcodes and territories, and minor disagreements and a perverse notion of respect. Members of the Committee will certainly be well aware of the number of young teenagers across the country who have lost their lives as a result of knife and gun crime that may be linked to organised criminal gangs.
For me, one of the most insidious aspects of the problem, and one reason why we must be careful in judging the right age range and, more generally, the application of the injunctions, is that often the most vulnerable members of the community are preyed on. The organisation Defending da Hood, which brings together gang members in east London to reduce the risk of violence, has suggested that some of the gangs actively target more vulnerable members of the community, with low educational attainment or from single-parent families, as part of their recruitment policy. The gang adopts tactics to undermine family ties to draw the individual away from traditional social support structures. Individuals are then encouraged to prove themselves as part of the gang structure, even going to prison as part of a rite of passage.
There is clearly a need for early intervention. The central question is whether the gang injunction is the right approach for younger gang members, or whether it would be more appropriate to have other interventions based more on support and intervention and on examining the childs needs and behavioural issues. That is why we wish to test the Governments views on bringing the 14 to 18 age range within the scope of the Bill, rather than a different age range.
It is important to put the proposal to change the age range in the context of the orders used before the introduction of gang injunctions under the Policing and Crime Act 2009. The West Midlands police used injunctions under section 222 of the Local Government Acta civil remedy intended for use by local government to deal with nuisance behaviourto deal with gang issues. Other areas have used ASBOs and other mechanisms to disrupt gang activity.
The West Midlands police found such injunctions a useful method for dealing with gang activity in the area. The Policy Exchange report Going Ballistic states:
West Midlands police were able to use Section 222 to exclude dangerous individuals from certain areas so that they could no longer exert influence, trade drugs or intimidate residents there. It allowed them to control dangerous gang members by enforcing non-association or restraining orders, exclusion zones around certain areas (barring known gang members from the area in which their gang operates) and specific exclusions (buses or parks).
That was the basis in law until the Nottingham county court ruled in Birmingham city council v. Marnie Shafi and Tyrone Ellis that the West Midlands polices use of section 222 in that way was inappropriate and could not continue, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. The court said essentially that except in exceptional circumstances, an injunction should not be granted where an application for an antisocial behaviour order could have been made and that if it were, the evidence would have to be proved to the criminal standard. In some ways, there is a cross-over between this debate and our discussion of the McCann case this morning. As a result of the ruling, the orders were no longer used. The Government responded by introducing gang injunctions in the Policing and Crime Act 2009, to which clause 31 relates.
However, it was understood that the orders would apply only to adults, which is how the West Midlands police targeted their approach. As they were civil injunctions, the only penalties that could be awarded for breach were a fine or a term of imprisonment, which would have meant sending a young person to an adult prison rather than a young offender institution simply because a civil court rather than a youth court would have been involved. That is the reason for clause 31 and the subsequent clauses in this part of the Bill; they seek to address the issue by applying or making available different sanctions in the civil court setting.
The hon. Member for Gedling, in his comments on the Policing and Crime Bill, highlighted the fact that there was a gap. I heard what the Minister of State has said loudly and clearly about the provisions in the Bill, but the hon. Member for Gedling said:
We should find a way, no matter how difficult or controversial, to legislate and create a civil preventive tool that prevents a 16-year-old from going to an area, wearing colours, associating with others or being used by people over 18 to do their errands or dirty work, which is increasingly happening.[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2009; c. 566.]
That is what we are doing in these provisions. The hon. Member for Gedling used a 16-year-old as his example. I am not implying that he was discussing an isolated case or a minimum age, but we must understand clearly what we are doing in setting an appropriate age range. Should it be 16, as some of the evidence seems to indicate, or should it be younger, as the Government have maintained in setting the minimum age at 14?
One justification for such orders is that they should be preventive. For example, a gang member might be prevented from being the victim of a reprisal attack by the provisions of the order. That preventive or protective approach was made clear when we discussed gang orders in Committee during the passage of the Policing and Crime Bill. Is this the right mechanism to provide child protection, for example? If a child, particularly a young child, is at serious risk of harm, there are existing powers to take them to a place of safety. If the police are concerned about lack of response from child protection agencies, they may, for example, use an emergency protection order to put a child into a place of safetyin a way, to force the issue with the relevant agencies in the locality if necessary.
Significant numbers of those involved in gang activity are children. If parents are not prepared to engage with support services to change behaviour, action needs to be taken to protect the childs safety and welfare.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

James Brokenshire: We were debating gang injunctions and the appropriate minimum age at which they might operate: should it be 14, as the Government assert, or it should be higher, as I suggest? This is a probing amendment to test the preventive nature of the orders, because, if the age range is set too low, other factors may come into play under the European convention on human rights or the UN convention on the rights of the child.
If we are looking at preventive activity, is the gang injunction the right mechanism to use for positive activity that will engage young people and take them off the gang pathway, or is it intended to have punitive aspects as well?
The age of the respondent may be relevant in understanding the order. One of the criticisms of ASBOs that have been levelled in some parts is that the conditions that are attached to them may not be sufficiently clear or may be too wide ranging. There is a need for clarity and certainty in this context.
That issue emerged during the original consideration of the Bill, but it is particularly relevant when we are considering where to set the age limit. In the context of imposing all kinds of significant and draconian provisions on younger people, possibly quite rightly in the context of their activities, interestingly the Standing Committee for Youth Justice stated in its comments on the gang-related violence provisions:
Many young people involved in gangs often have limited choice in joining them and are perhaps not aware of the implications of being involved. For girls in particular, membership in gangs may be exploitative in nature, and a welfare response rather than a punitive one is required.
I genuinely understand what the Government are trying to do by filling the gap in the Policing and Crime Act, but the question is where to strike the balance for a very young persona childbetween the child welfare provisions that might equally apply and much harder-edged gang injunctions.
The regulatory impact assessment acknowledges that age is a factor in young people being used to commit gang-related crime:
Race on the Agenda (ROTA)s response to an EIA consultation raised the possibility that those under the age of 18 may be used by more senior gang members to commit gang-related violence because they cannot be given an injunction.
That was speculative, because the injunctions have yet to come into effect, as we heard in the evidence-taking session, but, sadly, very young people have been forced or coerced to carry drugs, contraband, weapons and other things. Age can therefore be a relevant factor, so there needs to be sensitivity in respect of where the provisions fit.
At this stage we have no evidence and no sense of the practical implications of the application of gang injunctions, which have only just come into effect and none has been issued, but we should consider whether other sanctions could be used against the younger age group. For example, I understand that antisocial behaviour orders have been quite effective in disrupting gang-related violence in Manchester.
Other tools might be used. The order we are discussing is intended to replace the section 222 order, which was not intended to deal with very young children. The nature of the civil order, as I have explained, did not lend itself to such use. This type of injunctive relief was in essence applied and developed in Birmingham. The Birmingham reducing gang violence partnership targeted its work on 16 to 24-year-olds, which may have reflected the child welfare and child protection issues that I have mentioned in respect of that younger age group. We should consider whether targeting children in that group to stop and challenge their behaviour should be undertaken by working through education departments or childrens services and social services departments.
My probing amendment aims to help us to understand why the Government alighted on the age of 14. I recognise that there is a place for injunctive relief. The mechanisms that were used in the west midlands highlighted the fact that the utilisation of the old-form injunctions had an impact on disrupting gang-related violence. The focus should be on the exploitation of children by gangs and protecting communities from violence. We need to consider whether orders can be used proportionately and can take factors into consideration in trying not only to stop someones behaviour, but getting them to take a different path.
One big challenge is trying to break gang members out of their gangs. There is no single answer to that problem: the solution must sit within a multi-agency strategy, as we have seen in certain parts of the country. However, it is worth probing the Minister and understanding whether the age range of 14 and above is right or whether the bar should be set slightly higher. Once practice has developed, perhaps we can review whether the provision could be extended to a younger age group.
It is worth understanding how the Government identified the age of 14, as against an even younger age, given the evidence that, sadly, gang membership can start at an even younger age than 14. It would help if Committee members understood the Governments thinking and found out what evidence the Government have garnered to support their approach.

David Hanson: There is general agreement that gang injunctions can be a useful tool. I accept that to date the over-18 injunctions have not yet been implemented in a way that we can evaluate. Indeed, no injunctions have been granted. If the clause is agreed, that power will be extended from gang injunctions for over-18s to gang injunctions for under-18s for the purposes of preventing acts of serious violence, breaking down gang culture and preventing younger gang members from escalating their behaviour, and providing an opportunity for local agencies to engage with gang members and develop effective strategies for them to exit the gang. The provision could be a useful tool.
The question is where we draw the line. The age of criminal responsibility is 10, and adult injunctions come into effect at 18. Therefore, we have an eight-year period in which we could draw the line at any point. The amendment suggests the age of 16, while evidence given to the Committee by Councillor Jim Battle of Manchester city council and Maureen Noble, head of the crime and disorder reduction partnership, suggests that we should apply such injunctions to children as young as 10. Sadly, they indicated that there were occasions where children as young as 10 were involved in such behaviour.
We have had to draw the line somewhere, and we have drawn it at the age of 14. That is where we think that such a line will be most effective in terms of the prime age at which gang membership starts to develop into potential criminal activity. The Home Office commissioned a report monitoring data from the tackling gangs action programme in May 2008. The report found that the average age of first conviction for young gang members was 14. I do not want to over-dramatise by reducing the age of those whom the gang injunction would affect to 10, 11 or 12, but I want to look at how we can make it have the most effect. On the basis of age at first conviction, 14 seemed appropriate.

Robert Flello: If I heard my right hon. Friend correctly, he said that the age at which the first conviction was received was 14. I may have misheard, and I would be grateful for his clarification. However, if that is the case, surely that evidence would suggest an age of 13. We are looking to intervene before things gets to that stage. From that evidence, is there not an argument to say that the age of the injunction should be set slightly younger than 14?

David Hanson: I accept that there are arguments for any age. I could indicate that we would accept ages 10, 11, 12, 13 up to 18. We are trying to put something in place that begins to tackle gang culture so that individuals can benefit from measures that the alternative injunction could provide in terms of diversionary activity or intervention. The judgmentwhich is open to suggestionis that 14 is the correct age to choose. We could have made it 13, 12 or 16. The key point is about when it would be most effective.
We have had support for the age of 14 from a range of police forces and local councils across the country. They supported injunctions for people of ages 14 to 17which effectively means from age 14 to their 18th birthdaywho would be the principal applicants for this type of injunction should it be enacted. One of the key areas where such a measure has already effectively been used as an injunction is Birmingham city council. The assistant chief constable of West Midlands police, Suzette Davenport, wrote:
The community recognised the importance of these orders. Some mothers implored us to seek an order for their son so that he doesnt end up dead.
We supported Birmingham city council in its use of injunctions, granted under the inherent jurisdiction of the courts and applied for under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, to put similar provisions in place accordingly and help reduce gang violence and robberies. We have had debates on that under previous legislation regarding adult injunctions, and Birmingham city councils evidence suggested that injunctions were able to reduce serious harm by about 15 per cent., robbery by 12.5 per cent. and violent crime by 6 per cent.
Nothing is an exact science, but the murder of Kodjo Yenga in west London in March 2007 showed that children as young as 14 can be involved in gangs and in the most brutal and violent acts. There is a judgment to be made and a line to be taken. We willand havefaced external criticism for even considering an injunction on a gang member under the age of 18. We have been proportionate, and we have determined that 14 is the age range. I hope that the Committee will accept that.
Let me try to give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for Hornchurch. They will know that ASBOs can be imposed on individuals aged 10 and above. They are used regularly for even younger individuals. I am only sad that we have to have these provisions in the first place. In the area where I grew up in Liverpool and in Cheshire near your constituency, Sir Nicholas, even on some of the challenging estates there was not the current level of antisocial behaviour and gang activity.
I was a member of a gang and I was quite proud of it, but we did not undertake some of the activities of gangs today. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary saves me by saying that we did not undertake any of the activities of the gangs of today. There are honest agreements on this. I cannot give a definitive answer to why it is 14 as opposed to 16 or 10 or 11. It is an age that we put as a line. I commend it to the Committee.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the way in which the Minister responded, and where to draw the line is a difficult and delicate issue. The sad reality is that there are third and fourth generation gang members, and there is the whole issue of social justice and being able to escape from a gang situation. Yes, people make decisions. They make decisions about whether to commit crime and antisocial behaviour, but, sadly, some factors that might encourage or promote that type of activity exist in certain communities. Young children are being drawn into the criminal gang structure.
I equally recognise that the transition from primary to secondary school is a key time of recruitment into some criminal gangs. Some young people who are moving to secondary school are more vulnerable and want to fit in with the new group at school. There is the whole concept of elders and the foot soldiers who sit within these perverse gang structures that we see organised in certain parts of the country. I find that level of organisation highly disturbing.
There is a need to look very calmly at the measures that should be applied for use in conjunction with teenagers and children to try to break this cycle and to get young people out of the gangs and out of their exposure to risk, because simply hanging around a known gang member puts them at risk. They could be vulnerable to attack by being in the locality where a gang membera nominal as they are describedis known to reside.
There are key issues of child welfare and child protection, and I recognise that one of the conditions of the orders is preventive and is intended to stop an individual from falling victim to an appalling act of violence, whether by way of reprisal or simply through a wanton act. The question is where we set the line.
I listened carefully to the Minister on the decision to set the age at 14, and there are arguments that it could be somewhat lower. That is the sad reality facing young people in some parts of this country at the moment. In the light of what the Minister has said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29Use of animals in gang-related violence
(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2009 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34(5) (meaning of gang-related violence) after paragraph (c) insert , and
(d) may be involved in the use of animals as weapons..

Nicholas Winterton: I am very happy to call the hon. Member for Romford to speak.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. New clause 29 amends the provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 on gangs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch has talked extensively about gang crime, describing how human beings get involved in such crime and how it can affect communities, but we have yet to hear about the use of animals in that respect and the effect on them, and I should like to speak extensively on the subject.

Nicholas Winterton: Did you mean succinctly?

Andrew Rosindell: Indeed I did, Sir Nicholas.
Although many hon. Members will have examples from their own constituencies of dogs being used in crime, the one member of a gang that has not been mentioned in todays debate is the dog. Any animal can be used in crime, but in this modern age, dogs have been used extensively, particularly on estates. There are cases in which young people use their pet as a weaponas something that puts fear into other peopleso that people are afraid to walk in the park, on estates and in the areas in which they live. I hope that the subject will be addressed in the Bill, which is why I proposed my new clause.

David Hanson: It is not for me to curtail the hon. Gentlemans speech, but it may help if I say to him that the definition of gang-related violence includes violence or threat of violence that involves a dog or an animal. Essentially, the Bill covers the points on which he wants to elaborate in detail.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is grateful for that, as is the Committee. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will present his case.

Andrew Rosindell: If that was an attempt to curtail my remarks, the Minister will not succeed. None the less, I will say how inspired I was on 18 January when the Home Secretary referred to the use of dogs in gang crime. I was disappointed to see that there was no reference to the use of animals in the Bill, which is what I seek to rectify today.
I propose that reference to the specific use of an animal, whether it be a dog or any other type of creature, should be in the Bill to make it clear to those involved in crime, the authorities, police and local government that those who use an animal for criminal purposes are breaking the law. New clause 29 would insert such a reference into legislation. Currently, no provisions deal with animals that are used as weapons, although the Minister says that that is implicit in the Bill. We all know that dangerous dogs and status dogs are a modern-day phenomenon, particularly in inner city areas

Shona McIsaac: When leafleting.

Andrew Rosindell: Exactly, and I know that we will encounter them in the weeks ahead. That aside, this is a very serious problem. My mailbag is full of letters from people who fear the damage that dogs can do to a local community and the harm they can do to children and other dogs. In my own constituency, I have had many examples of such problems. We need action.
Both Ministers know that I have spoken extensively on the subject in the House of Commons, and particularly on the need to strengthen the law to ensure that existing legislation is effective. At the moment, it is not effective, but the Bill is a great opportunity to move it in the right direction. I am not suggesting that root-and-branch reform of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 can take place today; however, my new clause would start a gradual move in that direction, to tackle a very serious problem that blights the streets of many towns, cities, communities and estates across the country.

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. We have all seen the problem, but it is nothing new. We must all have read the tale of Bill Sikes and his dog in Oliver Twist. That is the archetype from history

Shona McIsaac: Literature.

Robert Flello: Indeed, literature, of using a dangerous dog. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, although it may be outside the remit of the Bill, we should be looking more fundamentally at the sale of dogs and the right to breed them? We should be getting to the heart of the problem, rather than dealing with the outcome.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I believe that intervention was slightly beyond the scope of the Bill, even if I use my widest discretion. Will the hon. Member for Romford deal with it in one sentence?

Andrew Rosindell: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South makes an extremely valid point. It is an issue I am dealing with but I am afraid we cannot go into detail in this Committee. I intend to take it further at a more appropriate stage.
Although dogs are far and away the primary concern of the proposed new clause, it is important to make provisions covering the use as weapons of all and any animals, particularly considering the illegal importation of exotic and poisonous species. I do not wish to frighten people more than necessary but there are examples of problems that could occur, particularly on estates where people decide to buy a petan exotic animal of some sortand that animal is then used for inappropriate purposes. I have seen a snake on a council estate in my constituency. Although that is not the main focus of my remarks, there is potential for crime to be made far worse if animals are used. I hope the Bill can go some way to deal with that; maybe not as far as we would like, or as far as we are permitted. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity for the Minister to tell us what he intends to do, both in the Bill and in the future.
The training and abuse of dogs as a means of acquiring and nurturing a living, breathing offensive weapon, needs to be addressed from the view of both public security and animal welfarelet us remember that side of things. I know in the Bill we are considering first and foremost the welfare of human beings, but we must also consider the well-being of the animal kingdom. Human beings on occasion use animals for inappropriate purposes and we should stamp it out. If gangs are using animals for inappropriate and cruel purposes and the welfare of the animal is not being considered, there should be appropriate law to deal with it and to remove that animal, to ensure the safety of the people who live in that community and the welfare of the animal.
Dogs are used as weapons in fighting and attacks, as well as general status symbols. That is where it all comes from in recent times: a dog is now a status symbol. Some Members of the Committee will be aware that I own a Staffordshire bull terrier. Sadly, that is the type of dog, along with pit bull terriers, Rottweilers and other breeds, that people tend to buy for status purposes. I believe that the culture of owning an animal as a status symbol is wholly wrongwrong for the animal and wrong in what the owner uses that animal for. An animal is to be cherished as a gift and looked after as a member of the family, not used for inappropriate purposes, which happens all too often in our society today.

Mark Oaten: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what exactly he seeks to add to the Bill that the Minister has not already outlined?

Andrew Rosindell: I explained that at the beginning, when the Minister mentioned that he felt that the matter was implicit in the Bill. I want to see reference to the use of an animal in the Bill. New clause 29 makes it clear that reference to animals used as weapons should be in the legislation on gang-related crime.

David Hanson: Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to table amendments on Report that cover every potential aspect of violence? We know the meaning of violence under common law. How it is undertaken and by what means are irrelevant. It could be an iron bar, a dog or driving a car in front of somebody. The act of violence is the defining factor that we are considering. I would have to add a whole list of other provisions to cover all eventualities.

Andrew Rosindell: If the Minister wishes to do that, perhaps he could suggest it. All sorts have additions have been proposed for inclusion in the Bill at this late stage. My concern is to highlight the issue, to debate it with Ministers and to find out exactly how they intend to deal with it. The Ministers interpretation is that the matter is implicit in the Bill, and I accept that. I do not suggest that we list every weapon that could be used. However, the right hon. Gentleman should understand from all the debates in the House, all the letters that he must receive on the subject and all the reports in the national press how serious the problem is. The Bill presents an opportunity to put in black and white in legislation that the use of an animal in the context of gang violence is against the law. I therefore hope that the Minister considers my points.
The new clause would provide a welcome step in the direction of focusing on gangs and their violent actions, as opposed to the current flawed legislation that focuses on the breeding and ownership of specific types of dog, as outlined in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Minister knows about the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which is a body established by the Kennel Club and includes representatives from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, The Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust, the Metropolitan police, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and Wandsworth borough council. The latter has taken the matter seriously and has dealt with many of the problems on their estates. I urge the Minister to visit Wandsworth to witness the councils success. The study group also includes the Wood Green Animal Shelters. It is not possible to find more eminent animal welfare organisations that are dealing with the problem of dogs used in crime on estates.

David Hanson: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I am trying to be helpful and do not deny that there is a problem in certain areas with dogs. However, if I accept the new clause, do I then have to introduce provisions on snakesas the hon. Member for Romford mentionedor other species of animal or other types of weapon? The key issue here is the definition of violence, and it is the violence itself, not the means of committing it, that is crucial to securing convictions and injunctions under the measure.

Andrew Rosindell: Perhaps we are going around in circles. I understand what the Minister says, and I do not suggest that he list every animal that could be used in crime or could harm a person. I mentioned snakes as an example of an exotic creature that could be used. I do not suggest that he list every type of snake and reptile, and every breed of dog. The new clause specifically mentions animals, and could refer to any kind of creature.

Alison Seabeck: Taking the analogy further, one would have to list every conceivable weapona spanner or a piece of wood, a knife or a gun. The list would be endless. The overarching word violence clearly covers the matter.

Andrew Rosindell: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we are talking about gang violence and the use of animals and I am trying to focus on that aspect.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what I am saying. He may consider accepting the amendment, but the matter is in his hands. The Government have included additional provisions as the Bill has developed, so I hope that the he will consider adding my new clause to the Bill.
One or two facts will emphasise the importance of the subject in todays modern society. The RSPCA saw a twelvefold increase in the number of complaints about status and dangerous dogs between 2004 and 2008. I believe that action needs to be taken to deal with the problem. The new clause gives the Government the opportunity to deal with this aspect of gang violence.
As a London MP, I know that it is a great problem. I am not sure whether any other London MPs are present, although the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was here earlier[Interruption.] I hear that she is outside the room. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is another London MP. It is a particular problem for our inner cities, but especially in London. Over the past five years, hospitals in London, where the problem is most severe, have seen a 79 per cent. increase in admissions for dog-inflicted wounds; nationwide, there has been a 43 per cent. increase. The problem cannot be ignored or brushed asideit must be dealt with. If it cannot be done through the Bill, I hope that the Government will consider it laterif they last long enough to produce a new Bill. The problem must be addressed, and we have the opportunity to debate it now.
Seizures of pit bull-type dogs shot up by 65 per cent. over the past yearevidence that the current legislation has not succeeded in reducing their number on our estates or in our towns and cities. The Minister may recall that, last summer, there was a major police raid in LondonOperation Navarawhich was one of the biggest operations of its kind. The Metropolitan police status dog unit undertook a raid of 12 addresses of suspected gang members in south London. It seized 20 illegal pit bull-type dogs, some as young as four weeks old.

Mark Oaten: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I seek your guidance on whether the hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill when talking about dog violence in such detail.

Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member for Romford is saying, which is still within the scope of the Bill and his new clause.
May I say that members of the Committee should be patient when listening to the hon. Gentleman speaking on this subject? He has established an amazing reputation over his years as a Member. Although for some it may be less important than many of the other measures contained in the Bill, I believe that he has every right to advance his new clause and give the detailed statistics that he uses to present his case.

Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for allowing me to continue. May I first respond to the hon. Member for Winchester? I am sorry that he feels that the topic should not be aired in Committee, because I believe that his constituents would be interested in it. If he were to ask, he would find that people believed it to be of equal importance to many of the other matters that we have spent much of our time debating. It is worth spending at least a few minutes to consider this matter in more detail. I therefore hope that the Government will consider what is being said and respond accordingly. Maybe he will consider that himself.
I was talking about last years Operation Navara. Puppies were being bred to be turned into devil dogs. Let us be honestthat is what they are being bred for, and that is what they will be used for: to spread fear and intimidation, and to threaten violence and harm to local communities. It is a growing problem, which I hope will be addressed. In that operation, specialist officers in protective padded gear smashed down the doors of several suspected gang members in early morning raids at 12 addresses in south London. The problem is strongly gang-relatedof course, individuals and their animals can also participate, but it is very much a gang problem. People are using dogs as part of their gang in local parks and recreation grounds and on estates. That is why I have raised the subject during debate on this part of the Bill.
The Opposition are highly concerned that current legislation is failing to tackle a fast-growing problem with a long-term view to a complete overhaul, which I believe is necessary, of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I will not detain the Committee by reading all the different recommendations of the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, but I urge the Minister to obtain a copy of them and consider them for the future.
I believe that we should begin by strengthening and reinforcing current law through the proposed amendments. I therefore move new clause 29.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Romford does not have to move the new clause, as it is being taken with clause stand part. There might be the possibility of putting it to the Committee at a later stage. He was wise not to quote from the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, as he would definitely have been out of order, and I would have been reluctant to so rule.

David Hanson: We have had a reasonable debate on amendments to the clause, so I do not propose to spend any time on clause stand part, as I think that Committee members from all parties understand the clauses purpose.
New clause 29 was tabled by the hon. Member for Romford. My intended approach is not to decry the amount of concern that he has expressed. There are problems relating to the use of dogs as a weapon, not just a status symbol, by many people in certain parts of the country. That has caused difficulty to ordinary members of the community as well as to police and the enforcement agencies that deal with it. It is a serious matter. The facts that he mentioned about the operations in Greater London are absolutely correct. The problem needs to be addressed as part of the overall examination of the issues.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has discussed with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the wider issues, which you may rule out of order, Sir Nicholas, relating to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and concerns about their criminal aspects. I am not telling the Committee any secrets, as that has been mentioned during Home Office questions and in the opening speeches on the Bill by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause, because we want to ensure that we consider the definition of violence, as I said in my intervention. Under section 34(5) of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, we define gang-related violence as
violence or a threat of violence which occurs in the course of, or is otherwise related to, the activities of a group that
(a) consists of at least 3 people,
(b) uses a name, emblem or colour or has any other characteristic...and
(c) is associated with a particular area.
We used the phrase
violence or a threat of violence
because the use of an animal, particularly a dog, may not actually cause physical damage to an individual, but would certainly be terrifyingvery frighteningand would constitute a threat of violence.
The definition of violence, as I mentioned, is a common law definitionit is not in statutethat indicates what violence against the person or the property means and that has been tested in law. The weapon used to commit the violence or threat of violence is unnecessary in the legislation. It could be a crowbar, a pit bull terrier or a piece of wood. It could be physical violence without the use of any weapon whatsoever, or the threat of violence. We know the common law definition of violence, and the courts understand it.

James Brokenshire: I hear what the Minister is saying, but does he agree that at times ownership of a dog may be a defining characteristic of a gang, so it may be relevant in supporting an application for a gang prevention order? Secondly, does he agree that there may be a relevant use of the powers under such orders to restrict someone who is in receipt of an order from being in possession of a dog or taking it out into the community, for example, because of evidence about the use of the animal in the past?

David Hanson: Yes, but let me return to where we are with the Bill. Clause 31 amends section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. It refers to the gang-related violence or threat of violence in section 34(5) of that legislation. In essence, we are working with a common law definition of violence.
I accept entirely the position of the hon. Member for Romford that violence or the threat of violence is the key defining characteristic. I am advised that at present there is a trial in the Old Bailey where a gang member over the age of 18 is being prosecuted under the current Act, charged with the offence of serious violence against the person. A dog was used as the weapon, and it falls within the definition in a prosecution that I cannot comment on in detail but which is before the courts at present.

Andrew Rosindell: I fully accept what the Minister is saying, but my point is that specifically referring to the use of an animal in the legislation makes it crystal clear to everybody and also emphasises strongly, because of the new threat on estates and in our towns and cities, that it is an offence to use an animal. I know that is implicit in the Billthe Minister is right to say thatbut what is the objection to making it crystal clear by specifically referring to animals in the legislation?

David Hanson: The objection is clear: I would be highlighting animals at the expense of any other form of violence or threat of violence. If I include animals, someone could say as their defence, Actually, I was using a piece of wood. The legislation does not refer to a piece of wood. I was not using an animal in a violent or threatening way. That would make it more difficult to achieve the potential we have with the present definition.
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a problem with animals in some parts of Greater London and some other areas, but I do not believe that highlighting them will add to the overall ability to prosecute cases of violence or threats of violence that are brought before the courts or, in connection to clause 31, which is linked to section 34 of the 2009 Act, to get the gang injunction we seek.

Andrew Rosindell: I accept what the Minister says. One cannot list every instrument that could be used as a weapon, but an animal is a living creature. That is the difference between listing a piece of wood, a knife, a crowbar and so on, and a living, breathing animal. They cannot be compared.

David Hanson: Although I cannot quote them in detail, there is a range of measures on the statute book to help to protect animals and prevent cruelty against them. I do not have chapter and verse, but the hon. Gentleman will know that a range of legislative options is available in the event of an animal being abused by its owner. There are daily prosecutions by a range of organisations, many of which have supported the hon. Gentleman.
The key for me is the definition of violence or threat of violence in relation to clause 31, which goes back to section 34(5) of the 2009 Act. That is where we are. If I defined violence as less than that, I would have to rewrite section 34 of the 2009 Act.

Mark Oaten: I am suddenly warming to the theme of the hon. Member for Romford. An individual must hold a pipe, a piece of wood, a gun or a knife to carry out the action that creates the violence. The difference with an animal is that it may independently carry out the violence. I want the Minister to assure me that that aspect is covered, because the person who perpetrated such violence could argue, I didnt do anythingthe dog did it. Would those circumstances be covered?

David Hanson: If a dog bites or attacks someone in the community, a range of legislation, not least the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991I do not have the details in my headis available to allow action to be taken, including action against the dog and/or the owner, even if the owner did not have a dog on a lead at the time. That aspect is covered under other measures.
We are discussing the use of the gang injunction, which applies if there is evidence of violence or threat of violence by a gang member as part of their concern. All we are saying is that section 34 of the 2009 Act defines that as someone who is a member of a gang involved in violence or the threat of violence. Clause 31 simply adds that to section 34 and says that the test for over-18s is the same as for under-18s, and it means violence.
I do not know whether I can progress the debate much further, because my arguments are becoming circular, which is not a good place to be. Essentially, that is where I am at the moment. I am receiving confirmation from elsewhere that it is already an offence to have a dog dangerously out of control. Under the clause as drafted, if a dog is used as a weapon by a gang member, an injunction is possible, and if the gang member does not use the dog as a weapon, an injunction is still possible. I do not believe that amendment is necessary and I do not want to go round in circles, so I shall sit down. I ask the hon. Member for Romford not to press his new clause, and to support the clause as drafted.

Andrew Rosindell: I do not intend to pursue the discussion further. The purpose of my new clause was to air the matter and to highlight to the Government that the issue is serious. I accept the Ministers reassurance and hope that, whatever happens, it will not be neglected in future legislation.

Nicholas Winterton: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The debate has been fascinating, and I feel re-stimulated in carrying out my duties in the Chair.
I want to be helpful to the Committee. I understand that the usual channels would like to get to the conclusion of clause 38 tonight. It is now almost half-past six and we have been sitting for two and a half hours. I intend to suspend the Committee at 7 oclock to enable hon. Members to have some sustenance. Whether we make sufficient progress so as not to have to return after refreshment is entirely in the hands of the Committee. I am a servant of the Committee. I am happy to be here until and beyond the Adjournment of the House at 10.30pmI understand that it could be even later on the legislation that is being debated in the Chamber. We have had some wonderful debates today; I congratulate all those who have participated. It has been hugely meaningful, and in the Chair I have learned a very great deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Review on respondent to injunction becoming 18

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 32, page 65, line 24, at end insert
(1A) In section 36 (contents of injunctions: supplemental), at the end of subsection (3) there is inserted provided that in the case of a person under the age of 18 a review hearing shall be held at least every six months..
We come to somewhat drier territory, I am sorry to say, after our interesting debate about the use of dogs as weapons and the sad situation that dogs are part of the gang culture and gang violence that the clauses speak to.
Amendment 166 would establish a six-month period in relation to review hearings of a gang injunction issued to a child aged under 18. The reason for that suggestion is that there are various aspects to the orders that are granted. Some of them are restrictive; they try to prevent gang activity by providing restrictions on someone who has been identified as part of a gang and has carried out the activities that the Minister has alluded to. Some aspects are preventive; they try to stop the person from getting into harm as a consequence of being in a gang. However, some aspects are intended to be positiveto provide engagement with services; it is envisaged that they will try to provide assistance to a gang member in exiting their gang.
It is in that context that I raise the issue of a review. There are certain parallels although they are not exactwith the issues dealt with by specialist drugs courts, for example. At the North Liverpool community justice centre, the concept of regular reviews is regarded as quite important, to monitor the behaviour of the person and to see whether they are adhering to the requirements imposed on them, in a positive sense of ensuring that there is visible support in the system to aid them to break either their pattern of behaviour or their pattern of criminality.

Robert Flello: I think the hon. Gentleman was touching on the point I wished to press him on. There is, of course, an issue about whether the statutory agencies and indeed other agencies are living up to their side of the bargain. For me, that is probably the most important issue in many respects, because although it is all very well that the young person who has been brought to task through the injunction is willing to take the support and help, it is really important to ensure that the help and support is available.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I was struck when I went to the North Liverpool community justice centre that Judge Fletcher, who is in charge of that court, uses the assessing and monitoring process not only to assess the individual offender, but to ensure that statutory agencies that have promised support on housing, welfare and other issues are adhering to their side of the bargain.
A review process can be quite instrumental and not simply for the purposes of focusing on the offender or, in this case, the recipient of an order. If we are serious about trying to get some of those troubled youngsters away from the gang path, it is important that the statutory agencies, and the voluntary agencies that might provide them with support, adhere to the requirementspromises to assist the person in breaking their pattern of offending, to challenge their behaviour, and get them on a different path.
An important aspect to young children under the age of 18 being subject to this order is that early intervention presents a better chance to try to change a pattern of behaviour, and a regular review might be of assistance. I understand that the review period for ASBOs is every 12 monthsI am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have misstated that in some way. I have suggested a period of six months in relation to gang activity, because the pattern of behaviour is likely to be much more severe and significant. The need for more regular monitoring and reviewing justifies a more interventionist approach to ensurefor the reason given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Souththat support services provide their end of the bargain. Such an approach would ensure that a suspected gang member knows that their behaviour is not only followed up by law enforcementI am sure the police would seek to use these orders in a way that presses that person to ensure that their lives are well understood and that they will, in part, be constrained by these orders to challenge their behaviourbut by the court process as well. Those two limbs are essential to break the pattern of behaviour.
The requirements of the orders might be described as having a paternalistic sense. That was something that was criticised by certain groups when the original injunctions were proposed under the Policing and Crime Act 2009. However, that is an important part of making the orders effective in breaking patterns and preventing further gang crimeindeed, preventing some of these young kids from being killed in tit-for-tat reprisals and other activity that takes place between rival gangs. There is merit in considering the requirements to try and ensure that the orders will be effective for this younger age group.
The summary RIA talks about a pilot being used to test the injunctions for this age group, saying that
the estimated costs of the pilot are between £24,750 and £92,300. The Home Office has agreed to fund any costs arising from the pilot, either in whole or in partnership with pilot agencies.
That appears, when one looks at some of the other focused costs, to be about court security costs, legal fees, legal aid, supervision orders and custody. On the costs that may be attributed to the pilot for the use of the orders for young people, I would hope that either directly or indirectly, through the partnership arrangements that are being drawn up, funding can be drawn to focus on those preventive measures that perhaps try to use the window of the injunction and the criminal justice intervention to break that pattern of offending.
It is important to use the order in that way, and not simply to be protective. Of course, I feel very strongly about protecting communities from the scourge of gang violence that far too many inner-city areas suffer, and these orders could be effective in that way. However, it is also important to look at how we change behaviour and why the regular reviewschecking that the interventions are there, that the support is there, and that those measures that might change long-term patterns of behaviour are thereare effective through this mechanism. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the proposal seriously.

David Hanson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a review after 12 months. That process is understood and accepted, and it operates under the Policing and Crime Act in respect of those over 18 who receive an injunction under section 36(4), which specifically states that that review should take place. The under-18 injunction would operate in a similar way.
If the review period were shortened to six months, officers dealing with the injunction would spend a lot of time bureaucratically working through the review at that point rather than getting on with running the injunction. That would be a diversionary activity, not for the young person, but for the officers dealing with the injunction, That is not how we seek to make progress on these matters.
There is provision in the Bill both for an application to remove the injunction before the 12-month period if the authorities think that progress has been made by the young person and for the young person to apply to have the injunction lifted, if they wish. The Bill contains proposals that would allow a young person to discharge the injunction, should they feel that they are no longer involved in a gang or gang-related violence.
I want to be quick, because this matter is relatively simple. The individual can apply to lift the injunction, those who receive one can apply to have it lifted and we have a review at 12 months anyway. A review at six months would lead to too much extra work and bureaucracy and to a focus on the review rather than on the individual. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Hornchurch to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Robert Flello: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, when the injunction is reviewed at 12 months, a view should be taken about the level of support from the statutory and other agencies, through guidance or in some other way, so that that is at the forefront of peoples minds when reviewing injunctions at the 12-month point and so that, if action needs to be taken against the authorities, it is taken?

David Hanson: That is a helpful suggestion, because generallylet us go back to basicsthe purpose of the injunction is to stop an individual being involved in gang-related activity or gang-related violence. Therefore the injunction is a tool used, under the under-18 proposals, to divert the young person away from the gang and to engage them in other activity. Sufficient progress may have been made to lift the injunction, but insufficient progress may have made with the individual to ensure that they return to society in a positive way and play a positive role generally, and they may need further support outside the injunction, and that would be a matter of course.
We are investing time, energy and resources into ensuring that the individual can be diverted from a future life of crime, meaning not just gang activity up to the age of 18, but invariably a long conviction with 20 or 30 years in prison for murder at some point downstream. I have no objection to my hon. Friends proposal, which will be considered as part of the management of the gang injunction and the individual to whom the injunction applies.

James Brokenshire: This short debate has been helpful. The contribution of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South helped to elucidate some of the arguments on the need for support services to respond. Sadly, that is not necessarily the reality. Sometimes we need checks and balances in the system to ensure that the orders, which are intended to be preventive and provide support services through the mechanism we are discussing, operate in that way.
The Home Offices equality impact assessment report states:
The ability to lever respondents into support programmes and mentoring is a key component that is designed to ensure that the benefits of exiting the gang lifestyle are felt by the respondent as well as the community they live in.
That has to be what we seek to use the order for. It is both preventive and protective. I know that the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, but I hope that he will reflect on the points that have been raised on guidance, because the orders must take that into account if they are to be effective in directing a troubled young person away from the gang and the long jail time to which the Minister rightly alluded. Sadly, the reality is that for some gang members a spell in prison is seen as a rite of passage that shows they have proved themselves to the gang. That is the sick reality of what we see with some of those organised criminal gangs in parts of the country.
In my journeys across the country, whether in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool or here in London, I have been struck by the way in which some of those gangs operate. The debate has been helpful. I note what the Minister has said and the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, and I hope that the matter will be reflected, if not in the Bill, at least in the guidance on how those provisions are to be implemented. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Consultation of youth offending team

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 33, page 66, line 9, at end insert
(ab) where the respondent is under the age of 18 (and will be under the age when the application is made), the childrens social services department in whose area it appears to the applicant that the respondent resides, and..
We now come to the requirement for consultation with certain agencies, in some ways developing the matters that we have just debated. The amendment would add childrens social services departments to the list of consultees in the clause when an order is sought for a young person. I certainly agree that youth offending teams should be added, but the circumstances of a troubled young person within a gang are likely to be complex. I appreciate that there are some consultation requirements with the local authority, but in relation to the young person, we need to ensure that that is not at a high-end level and that the childrens social services department or the childrens safeguarding board are consulted.
In its report on knife crime, the Home Affairs Committee highlighted evidence it received from the National Youth Agency on the critical factors, identified in research in the UK and the US, that can heighten the risk of a young person becoming involved in street violence, including
Detachment from families; Absence of or poor/inconsistent parental support;...Weak bonds with school and other institutions;...High levels of association with delinquent peers;...High levels of hopelessness: having negative expectations about oneself and ones future life;...Propensity to be impulsive and engage in risk taking behaviour; and...Living in neighbourhoods where positive opportunities are few, where social controls are weak, and where gangs are already embedded.
If we are to structure the terms of the orders correctly, it is important that there is a specific requirement to consult childrens social services departments, because the clause envisages issues relating to education, health and well-being and the important need to assess appropriate family situations. Another reason for flagging that up with the childrens social services department in the council might be the presence of siblings.

Mark Oaten: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, my understanding of the youth offending teams is that such consultation is already embedded in their work, so there is a danger of duplication.

James Brokenshire: It is right that the youth offending team is structured as an agency that deals with youth offending. However, the delivery of some of the preventive services will not necessarily reside with the youth offending teams. The teams will need to look outside their organisation to the local authorities to provide some of the support services that we debated previously, and in relation to this specific provision on consultation. Although there may be consultation with the YOT, that does not necessarily mean that there will be a wider engagement with the childrens social services and the local safeguarding children boards, which look into the wider aspects of services that might need to be provided to make the order effective.
One of the big risk factors is educational underachievement. Kids may be excluded from school, which then may lead them down a particular path. So the role of the local authority is critical, as is the role of the childrens social services department. I know that the Minister will probably rise and say that local authorities are already incorporated in this measure under the Policing and Crime Act 2009, but what do we mean by that? We need to be specific in relation to childrens social services in this context, because we are talking about the under-18s. We want to ensure that the right section of the local authorities is consulted. Local authorities often say that part of the problem with partnership is not simply with the relevant agencies outside the local authority but in getting the bits within the local authority to talk to each other. That is why there is merit in inserting in the Bill a specific requirement to ensure that a particular part of the local authority is engaged with a young person who may be isolated.
The other justification of my position relates to siblings. I was struck when I met members of the Excalibur taskforce recently in Manchester, who said that a young person who is identified as a gang member may well have siblings. The relationship that a sibling has with the gang membereven though they may not be a gang member themselvesputs them at considerable risk. If we identify a gang member who may need to be subject to an order, the consultation requirement is not necessarily simply to speak with that person but to consult their family and the other young people who reside in the household. We have to ensure that appropriate protective services are provided for the siblings. I tabled my proposal to be helpful and to gain clarity. I suspect I know what the Minister will say in response, but I hope that he will appreciate the context in which I am raising the matter. We wish to ensure that support services are delivered appropriately by the local authority as a key agency, and that the position of siblings is properly reflected in any action that is taken.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman is not only writing his own speeches but writing mine before I rise to make them. The points that he has mentioned for me to reflect back to him are the very points that I was going to reflect back to him. Section 38(2) of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 states:
The consultation requirement is that the applicant must consult
(a) any local authority, and any chief police officer, that the applicant thinks it appropriate to consult, and
(b) any other body or individual that the applicant thinks it appropriate to consult.
Clause 33 adds to that section a requirement to consult the youth offending team. Local authorities are responsible for childrens services. The amendment is interesting, and I am not decrying it, because there may be merits in focusing particularly on that issue, but I believe that it is covered in a way that also allows consultation with housing, transport, and education departments, not just childrens services. An individual of 14, 15, 16 or 17, may well have left full-time education and have become involved with housing, transport or other support services. The Policing and Crime Act will allow the wider consultation that the hon. Gentleman seeks with his amendment.
The nature of the assessment for a gang injunction will come under the assessment of the managing and risk of violent offenders. Multi-agency risk assessment arrangements were set up in 2001. They bring together police, probation and prison services, together with other agencies, such as social care, health, housing, children and education services and local authorities, to look at the potential risk posed by serious sexual and violent offenders.
The services available and the injunctions that will be granted if the clause is passed will operate in that context. Guidance will be produced by the Home Office on the management of those issues. Only last month, colleague officials from the Home Office held a gang management event in London with 33 of the 43 police forces in attendance to look at the issue of guidance, which I know the hon. Gentleman seeks to have in place. Therefore, that guidance is covered. It is an interesting amendment and the hon. Gentlemans points are relevant and will be reflected on. However, I believe that they are covered by section 38 of the 2009 Act, and I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I remember the debate on the consultation requirements in the 2009 Act, which is perhaps why I was able to second guess his reply. However, if we are making changes elsewhere so as to reflect slight differences in the application of these orders to children, it is worth reflecting that the appropriate consultee within the local authority is incorporated in that.
The Government have put forward their Every Child Matters agenda, which is intended to reflect that age group and ensure that that responsibility resides there. I hear what the Minister says about the consultation requirements and I certainly will not press the amendment to a vote. I hope that with guidance, there will be a strong means of ensuring that the appropriate parts of the local authority structure are properly engaged, in managing not simply the risk to the individual identified as a gang member, which I have already spoken about, but the risk to siblings. It is of significant concern to me that we ensure that, if necessary, protective services are put in place so that a young life is not put at risk simply because of the familial relationship with a gang member. I hear what the Minister has said; I am not surprised by it and in the light of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Application for variation or discharge of injunction

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 170, in clause 34, page 66, line 19, leave out any and insert that.
We shall see if we can rattle through a few points before 7 oclock and supper. This is a probing amendment to help us understand the purpose of the clause, which would apply to all gang injunctions. The clause states that if an application to vary or discharge an order is made but dismissed, no further applications can be made by any person without the consent of the court.
The provision appears to apply not only to injunctions or orders that are available for those under 18, but more generally. It would be helpful to understand why that is needed. It also seems strange because it cannot have been developed by way of practicewe know that there has not been any practice. Why is the measure being introduced at this point? Why was it not considered at the outset? Why should an application of one party prejudice the application of another? In any event, one of the applications would have to be determined by the court. If one person has applied and been unsuccessful, there is perhaps merit in saying that that person cannot reapply, to prevent an abuse of process. Equally, another party may wish to apply in certain circumstances.
It is a question of understanding what prejudice or administrative burden the Minister is seeking to deal with or correct in the clause. If it is thought there might be abuse it would be useful to know, so that we can understand better why the clause is in the Bill. The amendment would make the clause say that the application relates to that personin other words, if a person has applied for some form of variation, they should be prevented from making a further application. The question is why that should prejudice an application by any other person.

David Hanson: I hope that the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch will be deemed unnecessary, because the clause meets those objectives. Clause 34 provides that once the court has dismissed an application by either party to vary or discharge the injunction, no future application by either party will be heard unless the court consents. The straightforward purpose is to ensure that we prevent repeated and vexatious applications to the court, which I know the hon. Gentleman would not wish.
The amendment seeks, in essence, to provide each party with an automatic bite of the cherry before requiring the consent of the court to hear an application to vary or discharge. Once the court has dismissed an application to vary or discharge, it is required to consider any future applications made by either party before deciding whether a full hearing is necessary. The clause is proportionate and will ensure that we do not get vexatious applications to the court. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the Ministers clarification. Having heard his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (Mr. Watts.)

Nicholas Winterton: I wish Members of the Committee a happy, restful and enjoyable half-term break. The Committee will meet again at half-past 10 on Tuesday 23 February.

Committee rose.